we have to be careful of simply castigating non sanctioned events...it's where most races started out...hence my reaction earlier...just because it isn't sanctioned doesn't mean that it isn't of a high and appropriate standard...

that said, of course, the objective should be to encourage governing body sanction...

|

My frustration comes from the perception that events, and particularly triathlon, has become business and the sporting side is lost. I reiterate perception as I know it is not, generally, very profitable and there are a lot of good sportspeople turned race organisers doing a good job.

If you're the good organiser, with sports interest, you make the effort for things like sanction. If you're the business, profit chasing type, in my head, you try and cut corners and costs. It doesn't seem right in my head that the sanctioning should be an allowable cost cutting measure.

i would argue that the unsanctioned ironman raised the bar considerably in terms of event management and still made money...if it hadn't been for the businesses, this sport would still be bickering over who is in charge...

we have to be careful of simply castigating non sanctioned events...it's where most races started out...hence my reaction earlier...just because it isn't sanctioned doesn't mean that it isn't of a high and appropriate standard...

that said, of course, the objective should be to encourage governing body sanction...

|

My frustration comes from the perception that events, and particularly triathlon, has become business and the sporting side is lost. I reiterate perception as I know it is not, generally, very profitable and there are a lot of good sportspeople turned race organisers doing a good job.

If you're the good organiser, with sports interest, you make the effort for things like sanction. If you're the business, profit chasing type, in my head, you try and cut corners and costs. It doesn't seem right in my head that the sanctioning should be an allowable cost cutting measure.

that's a key point and in my experience those organisers who do permit their events see the benefits for all involved and run great events, as eJC says, some non-sanctioned events are of a very good standard but there are the odd few organisers who are either too lazy, or just too ignorant, and think there is money to be made from athletes so cut corners and costs to maximise profit.

we run an annual meeting of TOs and Event Organisers in the SEast to encourage us all to work together for the benefit of the events and athletes and that has proven to be an excellent way to ensure consistency of approach, understanding (e,g of rule changes) and good standards.
_________________And the lord said unto John; "come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

we have to be careful of simply castigating non sanctioned events...it's where most races started out...hence my reaction earlier...just because it isn't sanctioned doesn't mean that it isn't of a high and appropriate standard...

that said, of course, the objective should be to encourage governing body sanction...

|

My frustration comes from the perception that events, and particularly triathlon, has become business and the sporting side is lost. I reiterate perception as I know it is not, generally, very profitable and there are a lot of good sportspeople turned race organisers doing a good job.

If you're the good organiser, with sports interest, you make the effort for things like sanction. If you're the business, profit chasing type, in my head, you try and cut corners and costs. It doesn't seem right in my head that the sanctioning should be an allowable cost cutting measure.

i would argue that the unsanctioned ironman raised the bar considerably in terms of event management and still made money...if it hadn't been for the businesses, this sport would still be bickering over who is in charge...

sanctioning isn't an allowable event cost cutting measure....

aren't they still??

it's been good to see the ITU and WTC working together on areas of common interest, not least trying to get a harmonised set of rules that can be applied across the board. there are still differences of course but not as big as it was. and Superleague Triathlon have now come on board with a "memorandum of understanding" that the ITU is the governing body and from this season they will run with modified ITU rules (because of the format) and ITU qualified officials involved.
_________________And the lord said unto John; "come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

we have to be careful of simply castigating non sanctioned events...it's where most races started out...hence my reaction earlier...just because it isn't sanctioned doesn't mean that it isn't of a high and appropriate standard...

that said, of course, the objective should be to encourage governing body sanction...

|

My frustration comes from the perception that events, and particularly triathlon, has become business and the sporting side is lost. I reiterate perception as I know it is not, generally, very profitable and there are a lot of good sportspeople turned race organisers doing a good job.

If you're the good organiser, with sports interest, you make the effort for things like sanction. If you're the business, profit chasing type, in my head, you try and cut corners and costs. It doesn't seem right in my head that the sanctioning should be an allowable cost cutting measure.

i would argue that the unsanctioned ironman raised the bar considerably in terms of event management and still made money...if it hadn't been for the businesses, this sport would still be bickering over who is in charge...